yang686526

asme y14.41-2003 & adobe pdf....
hello forum,
i don't enjoy the circular process of turning my 2d concept sketches into 3d cad geometry, to only revert it back to a 2d engineering drawings...seems wasteful. i don't see the point in entering data twice (i.e. once in during 3d cad and again in the 2d drawing). i don't like having to update changes in two places. hence, i'm very excited about moving to the new asme y14.41-2003 standard.
what does the forum think about using adobe 3d as a standard exchange format for asme y14.41-2003 engineering control data?
the reader is free (i.e. vendors don't have to pay for the ability to view 3d design information). vendors can measure , section, and study the part to their hearts desire. and lastly, they can use the 3d pdf data to export a suitable iges or step file for cam import (we only need to send the vendor one small file) in addition, it lends to easy revision management using current pdm solutions...and the list goes on. anyone agree?
check out the feature demo:
it seems like the biggest hurdle is affordable cmm inspection equipment. here's to 2d drawingless world!
p.s. and no, i don't work for adobe or its subsidiaries.
eng-tips forums is member supported.
i guess a side note is "what software are you using that requires you to enter data twice?"
but to answer your question, it sounds like you answered your own question!
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
i'm also excited about this evolution. while i haven't any experience using adobe 3d, i have recieved customer files in their native format using this standard, and it seems to be the wave of the future.
i think it will be awhile though before it is fully accepted, as their are too many old school fabricators who don't seem to want to fool with it. the same thing was said of cad when it was first being used, and look where we are today.
believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.fff"> - robert hunter
there have been threads on here about mbd generally before, it's almost certainly the way of the future.
the question is just how far of is that future.
for some sectors it's here, and has been for a while.
for others it seems it's still a ways off.
i've looked into it a little and for my organization the leap to mbd is probably a ways off for various reasons.
acrobat 3d is one option but i've also heard jt being pushed hard as well.
kenat, probably the least qualified checker you'll ever meet...
thanks for the reply all. i agree that another large hurdle is getting job shop guys on board. in addition to inexpensive ways to inspect against the 3d file.
one note regarding the job shop. i've spent days working on multi sheet drawings, twenty view drawings, with detailed 2d gd&t. i pass it off the the vendor to have him/her say "theres to many dimension, just send an iges and point out the critical tolerances."
needless to say...some job shops are ready, but maybe not ready for a new standard they must formally learn.
fyi: solidworks 2007
dmech, i don't know about your system but for our cad if you know what you're doing then generating the drawing from the cad model isn't too time-consuming.
sure calculating the required tolerances, tolerance scheme etc takes time but...
with mbd surely you're just moving that effort from in the drawing to in the model.
right you are, kenat. datums and tolerance schemes will have to be defined, regardless of the format the information is presented in. i don't see that going away any time soon, if ever.
believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.fff"> - robert hunter
dmech, your comment is just scary to me. in no way should a vendor rely on "critical dimensions", never ever never. the product should be fully defined regardless of method of documentation. yes, the drawing can have just a few dims on it with appropriate callouts, but all unidentified dims still have to be toleranced in some way. asme y14.41-2003 para 3.1.1 says that geotols are preferred, but that direct dimensioning is allowed, all per asme y14.5m of course.
and to add to kenat's comment, the drawing is an actual contract by its own right. i've not seen similar consideration given to a solid model. reliance on solid models only suggests even higher reliance on p.o.'s to set the requirements of the product as being per the model. any one else have a comment about this point?
matt lorono
cad engineer/ecn analyst
silicon valley, ca
i agree with the others 100%.
the comment "theres to many dimension, just send an iges and point out the critical tolerances" is pure ignorance and laziness.
chris
solidworks/pdmworks 08 2.0
autocad 06/08
that's when you say, "you know what, we are using a different vendor. thank you."
"art without engineering is dreaming; engineering without art is calculating."
matt,
as to putting a higher reliance on po's, this isn't necessarily so. the same toleranceing data that was present on a drawing would now be present in the model file, not just a solid body alone. cad packages are evolving so that any gd&t notation will be tied to the model. pick the notation, and the associated area of the solid will also highlight, and visa-versa. notations will be oriented to the screen regardless of how you rotate the solid. there are packages out there now that will tell you if the gd&t that you want to use is valid or a pipe dream.
one downside will be in achieving the discipline necessary to segregate all of this info so that it is easily readable and retrievable, but that can be overcome, as it has with ever more complex solid models.
believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.fff"> - robert hunter